Wednesday, February 06, 2008

Who Really Loses

Who Really Loses If Ron Paul Doesn't Win?

Someone asked me today what I was going to do since Ron Paul lost the California primary. Ron Paul didn't lose anything, California lost, the United States of America lost. They lost because instead of voting for Ron Paul they chose one of the alternatives. It makes no difference if they voted for any of the Republican or any of the two remaining Democratic candidates, the end result is that America lost.

I am not even going to waste my time on whoever the nominee is for the Democrats, they are all the same old message. The only difference being that one candidate is younger and speaks more of hope and change, while the other is one who claims she is better prepared to be president because of her record of service. Both Democratic candidates are pushing for the same old partisan issues that have been mainstays of all democratic candidates going back years, health care being chief among them this time around. The packaging may be different but the message and what we will get if either of these two get elected will be more of the same old socialistic BS that the Democrats are famous for.

On the other side, it appears that John McCain is going to be the candidate for the Republicans. I have already written pretty extensively on him, but there are still a few tidbits left still that might make you want to think twice before you put him into the oval office.

Do you want to elect a president who has anger management issues? How would you like to have a president who flies off the handle if he doesn't get his way with foreign diplomats or even with Congress?

In May of 2007, Senator John McCain, in front of other Senators, screamed "F- - - you" at Senator John Cornyn in a debate over overhauls to the comprehensive immigration reform legislation that was later defeated in June.

McCain himself has admitted that he has anger management issues. In 2005 on the Tony Snows radio show, McCain admitted to Brian Kilmeade that "I constantly, throughout my career, have had to work on getting angry and frustrated and losing my temper"

John McCain has also campaigned heavily on the issue of fiscal responsibility. I don't know how many times he has mentioned that, as president, he would veto any legislation that was loaded with earmarks.

In an interview on FOX News John McCain said the following, "Well, I — and when we see what happened to spending and we have a bridge to nowhere of $233 million to an island with 50 people on it and we have former members of Congress who are now residing in federal prison because of the spending and corruption, my friend, we have to, if we’re going to restore the confidence of the American people and our Republican base first, we’re going to have to cut the spending, we’re going to have to eliminate the pork barrel and wasteful spending."

Yet in 2006 did not Senator McCain, along with Senator Jon Kyl, enact a bill that would direct $2 million annually over a five year period to establish a center at a specified law school to honor a renowned jurist from the state of Arizona?

I could just as easily go over the record of Mitt Romney, but why waste time when it appears his chances of winning the GOP nomination are slimming by the hour. The point is that John McCain, as well as Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama will do and say whatever is politically expedient for them to curry favor among voters in their respective parties, when their records show their true colors.

Come November when we are asked to place a vote for the Republican candidate, most likely McCain, or the Democratic candidate it will be like having someone point a gun at you and say, 'Where do you want it, head or heart?' The end result is that the country loses, again. Our government will continue to grow like a cancer, eating away at our freedoms and liberties, when we had the chance to vote for true change by casting our vote for Ron Paul. So that is why the country loses, not Ron Paul. He will continue to be a man of honor and dignity no matter the outcome of this election. It is the country, and we the people who will suffer, not him.


tshsmom said...


neal said...

Read my newest one if you liked this one.

geopax said...

I agree none of the candidates will help this nation. I must take exception on your comment on health care. I strongly feel each American should have health care available. Socialism means the government directs the health care system with no choice left to the individual. The plans advocated by Obama and Clinton do leave choice. You would not have to abandon your present health care. The Republicans use the word Socialism whenever they want to mislead the people. Here we need to turn to Webster so we can understand the much misused term- "a political and economic theory advocating collective ownership of means of production and control of distribution". Clinton, who I have no love for, and other Democratics have constantly been called socialists by Republicans. Its a lie. They are all capitalist like the rest of us.
The Democratics have a desire to help the poor. They should limit that desire to Americans instead or extending it to the world. The Republicans are so stupid many actually don't believe in evolution and think global warming is a Democratic conspiracy. We lose no matter who gets elected. I await a third party savior!

neal said...

Geopax-I agree that every American should have health care available, but not by government mandate. Health care is available to all right now. It is just too expensive. I am not fully up to date on HMO's and legislation that benefits them, but they are making a killing by the fees and everything else involved in health care. Doctor bills would be far less if the HMO's stopped meddling in it. If they just paid the bills without all the friggin' paperwork Americans just might be able to afford health care. Also when is it fair that the drug companies can lay the cost of medicines upon the American people? They say we pay higher prices because of the research and development. Yet why should Americans alone pay those high costs when the medicines benefit EVERYONE?

Health care should be affordable to all but not mandatory as the Democrats would have it. That is part of the problem with this country, the people think that the government should regulate and legislate upon issues that THEY HAVE NO BUSINESS AND RIGHT TO DO SO. The more they stay out of things the better off people would be. The Constitution grants the government NO RIGHT to even discuss health care. Sorry if this offends you, but it is the truth.